331–340 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ummmm...you do realize the Dems hold supermajorities in both houses right? Do republicans have psychic powers they're using to control the Dems now?
A single state senator (one of the few Democrats who opposes SB-50) blocked the bill from being voted on. The supermajority was irrelevant.
The real solution is to decommodify housing. >The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for the natural produce of the earth. -Adam Smith
This may not change the argument, but he was referring to the landed gentry who owned farmland rather than people who build and maintain buildings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have there been leasing periods in your past where rent increases exceeded 7 percent? Is that common? Also, I assume there is some market pressure to consider, if your increases outpace supply and demand, then tenants would simply move, right?
In the US, it is very common the past decade or so. I'm in bumblefudge-nowhere-Midwest USA, and even we've averaged 10% yearly rent increases, for more than 5+ years now. Every top-20 metro area I've looked at, has had it worse than us on rental price increases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing. The parent comment was arguing that because the law now says that rent couldn't increase by more than 7% they were now being advised to increase rent by that much every year (ostensibly because they are now planning to do this), and my response is that it's absurd to claim that anything in the law will change things so that you could make that sort of increase now if you couldn't already make that increase b…
Many landlords are not paperclip maximizers. REITs are, but small time families often charge below-market rents to the long term tenants they personally like or can’t be bothered to replace. They feel comfortable doing this because they can always revert to market rate later. With that long-term optionality going away, some will revert to market rate or as close as legally possible right now.
I am a landlord in Oregon, but not California. The curious, although ultimately predictable, outcome of the new rent control measure in Oregon is that while I have historically had an arrangement with my property management to be restrained in annual rent increases, they are now advising a default annual increase of the maximum allowed (7 percent before inflation). This is because larger adjustments cannot be made if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> do you have any clue about this specific measure? Any price control inevitably has negative consequences in the market. This is practically a law of economics. > Its limited to buildings that are 15 years old or older, and it limits rent increases to 8% annually, which in practice is about 1 - 3% of all lease agreements in CA, a very small amount. If it with have such minimal effect why even have it? > Commercial c…
This is simply about spreading out massive rent hikes over the course of a few years instead of a few months. It gives families time to adapt or move. The allowable increases under this law are very high. It may not seem justified to you, but to a low income family in a rapidly gentrifying area, it means everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not enough to fix the housing problems CA has. Not nearly. And if that's the problem, tax empty homes. But even then, even if there are empty homes, building more will still fix the problem. Let those foolish owners leave the homes empty- we can build more anyways.
I really dislike the notion of clearing more land and putting up more cookie cutter houses and apartments for the sake of saturating the housing market in order to get people to rent for reasonable prices.
I'm a renter in Oregon and I've been outspoken about this long before the laws were passed. From my experience, people who support heavy laws, regulations and taxes don't spend enough time considering potential side effects. They feel like with enough support, they can just force anything they want to happen, while completely disregarding the market. I feel like an amount of the general public just wants Big Daddy go…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, it is very common the past decade or so. I'm in bumblefudge-nowhere-Midwest USA, and even we've averaged 10% yearly rent increases, for more than 5+ years now. Every top-20 metro area I've looked at, has had it worse than us on rental price increases.
I’ve been back in the USA for more than 3 years now and haven’t experienced this yet. I’ve lived in hot housing markets also (LA and then the Seattle area).
And I strongly suspect these numbers are below real-world ones (they use Zillow-listing advertised price, which like most advertisements, are usually slightly lower than the actual price a real person would have to pay)